Not really, no. Less cancer is always better than more cancer, no matter where it is.
You do know that everyone has a bit of cancer, right? Zero cancer just isn’t a thing that happens in an organism composed of trillions of cells. Likewise, zero exploitation and suffering just isn’t a thing that happens in a population composed of billions of people.
A little cancer is handled by immune reaction, a little more by medicine and surgery, a lot kills the organism. A little exploitation is handled by social reaction, a little more by political action, a lot kills the population.
No matter where the cancer is, less is better than more. We were in the treatable stage and you clowns insisted on skipping chemo.
No cancer is better, less cancer is not better - it’s still cancer. But if you’re willing to accept that, go for it; Enjoy your cancer.
And why are you comparing it with a ‘harmless’ amount of cancer that is naturally removed and not an issue instead of what any normal person thinks of when they hear cancer?
Zero cancer just isn’t a thing that happens in an organism composed of trillions of cells. Likewise, zero exploitation and suffering just isn’t a thing that happens in a population composed of billions of people.
No cancer isn’t a thing. It’s only “better” in an unobtainable, hypothetical, entirely delusional sense. Refusing to settle for less than impossible things is just plain stupid. We were managing with less societal cancer. You skipped chemo because it makes you feel yucky, and now it’s metastasized. Are you proud of yourself?
We can have a little exploitation and suffering as a treat.
The fact that it’s only a little is the treat
Oh yeah like a little bit of cancer. How lucky.
Uh, yeah, exactly? A little bit of cancer can be fought and beaten. A lot of cancer is a death sentence.
Depends where the cancer is doesn’t it now?
Not really, no. Less cancer is always better than more cancer, no matter where it is.
You do know that everyone has a bit of cancer, right? Zero cancer just isn’t a thing that happens in an organism composed of trillions of cells. Likewise, zero exploitation and suffering just isn’t a thing that happens in a population composed of billions of people.
A little cancer is handled by immune reaction, a little more by medicine and surgery, a lot kills the organism. A little exploitation is handled by social reaction, a little more by political action, a lot kills the population.
No matter where the cancer is, less is better than more. We were in the treatable stage and you clowns insisted on skipping chemo.
No cancer is better, less cancer is not better - it’s still cancer. But if you’re willing to accept that, go for it; Enjoy your cancer.
And why are you comparing it with a ‘harmless’ amount of cancer that is naturally removed and not an issue instead of what any normal person thinks of when they hear cancer?
No cancer isn’t a thing. It’s only “better” in an unobtainable, hypothetical, entirely delusional sense. Refusing to settle for less than impossible things is just plain stupid. We were managing with less societal cancer. You skipped chemo because it makes you feel yucky, and now it’s metastasized. Are you proud of yourself?
No normal person when hearing cancer would think ‘harmless everyday mutation’ and not ‘deadly growing thing’.